Why Justice Roberts deserves a severe punishment (Obamacare)

By: Guest Authors

By: Johnwk

There is perhaps no greater tyranny then when a Justice of our Supreme Court, charged with enforcing our written Constitution, uses their office of public trust to side with and defend domestic enemies who work to seditiously overturn the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. This is what Justice Roberts is guilty of and will herein be confirmed by the very words of our founding fathers!

In upholding Obamacare Justice Roberts relies upon that part of our Constitution which declares:“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States“

These very words were likewise used by our tyrannical members on our Supreme Court in 1937 to uphold the progressive’s assault upon our Constitution under their Social Security Act ___an act designed to create a captive voting constituency dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check.

The two cases upholding the Social Security Act are Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 and Steward Machine Co. (1937).

In these cases the Court stated: “Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”

What is important to note is, the Court cites the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and, the Court will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court is not interested in reviewing the historical record during the making and ratification of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood by our founders during its framing and ratification process. Instead, the Court is eager to use an irrelevant comment made by Hamilton concerning the phrase “general welfare” which was made after the Constitution had been adopted in order to uphold the progressive’s Social Security Act as being constitutional.

But, the truth is, the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution and is therefore inadmissible in determining the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. It was made after the Constitution had been ratified and when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury and trying to gain support to financially encourage specific manufactures.

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”

But these words were written by Hamilton after the Constitution had been adopted and are in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 to gain support for the adoption of the Constitution. In No. 83 Federalist, which is applicable to the meaning of “general welfare”, Hamilton, in crystal clear language refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. See Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 through 11 for the subjoined “specification of particulars”.

Hamilton writes:“…the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended…”

This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:
Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following: “It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?…For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: “the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes….”

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause as being a general legislative grant of power, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, Justice Roberts has spat upon the universal meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood by our founders during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process, and he has sided with domestic enemies who are constantly working to seditiously broaden the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government by our Constitution. For this he needs to be punished!